What do 'nerdy' guys like in girls?

[Astronuc]

So what I've learned from the last two or three pages is that women need to be more discriminating with respect to their mates, and most men should probably keep their genetic material to themselves.

With respect to jocks and bad boys, most should probably be avoided, and actually probably all the 'bad boys' should be avoided.

As far as I can tell from observing friends and various celebrities, people who indulge in casual sexual relationships do for personal pleasure rather than investing in long term (and otherwise healthy) relationships, i.e., there is no assumption of responsibility to the other partner.

An intelligent and athletic mate is probably most desirable, and I'd add prudent and diligent.

The intelligence makes for an interesting person to be with. Prudence and diligence mean a good provider - someone who can support the mate and any offspring - and can provide for late in life as the couple ages, and probably one who would not stray. Athletic is important from the standpoint of health, particularly later in life when a large portion of the population encounters coronary and pulmonary problems, diabetes, and/or various cancers. I would imagine each partner/mate in a couple would like the other to be healthy so as to avoid long term companionship not encumbered by chronic health issues or disabilities.

 

[DanP]

An intelligent and athletic mate is probably most desirable, and I'd add prudent and diligent...

You've hit the nail in the head. IMO there is no need to debate between physicality and intelligence. They are both valuable. Some of us may feel more intimidated towards one or another,but in the end, they are both desirable qualities.

 

[Astronuc]

You've hit the nail in the head.

Better than my thumb.

IMO there is no need to debate between physicality and intelligence. They are both valuable. Some of us may feel more intimidated towards one or another,but in the end, they are both desirable qualities.

Also - a good sense of humor is important - especially when all else fails.

 

[Hurkyl]

Has nobody commented on the fact that as you get to know someone you like, they become more attractive? And as you grow to dislike someone, they become less attractive?

Or am I the only one weird like that?

 

[DanP]

And as you grow to dislike someone, they become less attractive?

Or am I the only one weird like that?

Like in, I hate my wife who nags me all day long , and I so much fancy the 25 years old grad student who thinks I'm a so cool ?

Joke :P

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Yeah, but IMO a line should be drawn between attraction and mating behavior.

You go out for the weekend. Let's say in mountains. You talk to your friends, have fun and go to a crag for some climbing. You arrive there and see a young hot chick climbing the crag
and for you, she abruptly stands out compared to any other girls / women present at the scene. You are attracted to her. But as for now, you know nothing else about her. You don't know her name, her game, intelligence, social status. In fact you don't know anything except the fact she raised your pulse a bit. (Actually, it may be a bit of arousal transfer from the situation to the person. If you like climbing, the mere fact she is climbing a dangerous route will arouse you, and you may inadequately attribute some of the arousal you feel to the person)

It's anybody;s guess what happens afterwords, but you already felt attraction.

There are more factors than mere physical looks (check bones, eyes, buttocks, ect) there are also body language cues, the sound of her voice, the manner in which she dresses, the fact that this particular female is apparently engaged in an activity which you yourself enjoy, ect.
I think our main disagreement though comes from difference in opinion on what defines "attraction". I would not consider a twitch in the pants to equal "attraction". I consider the initial physical response to be only one element of attraction personally.

I wonder if this is really true. I've also heard that men (in general) only care about the children through the woman they're currently involved with. In other words, a lot of men care more about the children of the woman in their current relationship, even if not their own, than their own children when their ex-mate has custody.

I think that now this is more prevalent than it would have been in ages past, though I have no evidence only conjecture based on the activity of other animals. In todays society step children are often treated with less regard and as you point out the new children in a new relationship are sometimes treated better than children from previous relationships. There are also the cuckolded which is something I am sure probably happened fairly often.

I am only theorizing, based on current cross cultural tradition, that the standard family evolved to be a stable social unit as opposed to females typically being impregnated by which ever male decided to have them and then move on to the next (or vis versa I suppose).

 

[GeorginaS]

Has nobody commented on the fact that as you get to know someone you like, they become more attractive? And as you grow to dislike someone, they become less attractive?

Or am I the only one weird like that?

Nope. You're not the only one who is weird like that. I can relate entirely.

 

[Proton Soup]

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0009042"

PLoS One. 2010 Feb 5;5(2):e9042.

Optimal waist-to-hip ratios in women activate neural reward centers in men.

Platek SM, Singh D.

Department of Psychology, Georgia Gwinnett College, Lawrenceville, Georgia, United States of America. splatek@gmail.com

Secondary sexual characteristics convey information about reproductive potential. In the same way that facial symmetry and masculinity, and shoulder-to-hip ratio convey information about reproductive/genetic quality in males, waist-to-hip-ratio (WHR) is a phenotypic cue to fertility, fecundity, neurodevelopmental resources in offspring, and overall health, and is indicative of "good genes" in women. Here, using fMRI, we found that males show activation in brain reward centers in response to naked female bodies when surgically altered to express an optimal (approximately 0.7) WHR with redistributed body fat, but relatively unaffected body mass index (BMI). Relative to presurgical bodies, brain activation to postsurgical bodies was observed in bilateral orbital frontal cortex. While changes in BMI only revealed activation in visual brain substrates, changes in WHR revealed activation in the anterior cingulate cortex, an area associated with reward processing and decision-making. When regressing ratings of attractiveness on brain activation, we observed activation in forebrain substrates, notably the nucleus accumbens, a forebrain nucleus highly involved in reward processes. These findings suggest that an hourglass figure (i.e., an optimal WHR) activates brain centers that drive appetitive sociality/attention toward females that represent the highest-quality reproductive partners. This is the first description of a neural correlate implicating WHR as a putative honest biological signal of female reproductive viability and its effects on men's neurological processing.

PMID: 20140088

 

[DanP]

I am only theorizing, based on current cross cultural tradition, that the standard family evolved to be a stable social unit as opposed to females typically being impregnated by which ever male decided to have them and then move on to the next (or vis versa I suppose).

Monogamous strategies always made sense in reproductive behavior of humans. It's the safe route.

You seem to believe that sometimes in the past females gave into "whichever male decided to have them", which I don't believe it was ever the case.

IMO There doesn't exist any drive whatsoever for the women to act like this, and it never existed in past. It really never made sense for a women to act like that. from an evolutionary point of view.

 

[zoobyshoe]

For males, the equation is pretty simple: nature. Go out there and have sex with as many "attractive" women as possible to spread your genetic material.

There is no male drive to spread genetic material. Genetic material gets spread incidentally as a result of the male drive to have a lot of sexual experiences.

Some of the people in this thread are unwittingly standing with one foot in Natural Selection and the other in Intelligent Design. There is no drive behind evolution. We're not headed anywhere. Things mutate. Some mutations are accidentally better adapted to the circumstances at hand.

Any sudden environmental change will shift the parameters of what constitutes a successful trait. Today's strength can become tomorrow's liability, and visa versa.

 

[DanP]

There is no male drive to spread genetic material. Genetic material gets spread incidentally as a result of the male drive to have a lot of sexual experiences.

The result is the same thing at the end of the day.

Of course you are not born with knowledge, you are only born with instincts which cause behaviors. In this case behaviors of having sex.

But in the end of the day, why do you have those instincts, and behaviors ? For the simple reason they cause reproduction. They do exist only because of this. The ultimate reason for any of those instincts and behaviors is reproduction.

If sex would not cause reproduction and transfer of genetic material, it would not exist.

Some of the people in this thread are unwittingly standing with one foot in Natural Selection and the other in Intelligent Design. There is no drive behind evolution. We're not headed anywhere. Things mutate. Some mutations are accidentally better adapted to the circumstances at hand.

Nobody in the thread claimed that there is a plan for evolution and it's heading in any special direction. You can replace it with 'sex instinct'. Drive for reproduction.

Any sudden environmental change will shift the parameters of what constitutes a successful trait. Today's strength can become tomorrow's liability, and visa versa.

Irrelevant. Really.

 

[BobG]

(personal beliefs following )

Well, being a man who was raised in a communist country(Romania), I can tell this is an utopia. Of course, you may find individuals in any society who believe that social "equality" is a great thing. It is not. It only serves the weak ones. And it is unnatural. I do agree however to supporting the weak through reasonable means, such as better health systems and better social care.

It's a utopia for large societies. It's a very effective system for small groups; especially small groups that have to compete with other small groups. And, even in small groups that have a "socialist" mentality, that doesn't necessarily mean they believe in social equity. It just means the "weak" ones have to receive a benefit that outweighs what they could achieve on their own - at least until a society has developed to the point that the "strong" can just force the "weak" to support them (through slavery, etc).

There is no male drive to spread genetic material. Genetic material gets spread incidentally as a result of the male drive to have a lot of sexual experiences.

And zoobyshoe hit on the key. He just stopped a little short. There's also a drive to obtain an emotional bond and that drive to obtain an emotional bond is what expands sex drive into a motivation to provide for a female and whatever kids she may have - which hopefully, but not necessarily, are his.

As long as more of his own kids survive in that type of social environment than would survive in some alternative social environment (cares only about sex with no desire for emotional attachment, for example), then the behavior will tolerate some "imperfections".

I think that now this is more prevalent than it would have been in ages past, though I have no evidence only conjecture based on the activity of other animals. In todays society step children are often treated with less regard and as you point out the new children in a new relationship are sometimes treated better than children from previous relationships. There are also the cuckolded which is something I am sure probably happened fairly often.

Serial monogamy has a long enough history that the "evil stepmother" is a staple of literature. For a female that can only have a very limited number of children, preference for her own children would logically be very strong. You don't see the same "evil stepfather" stereotype in literature. For a male that could theoretically have an unlimited number of children, any single child, including his own, would have less importance. It would be easier for other instinctive desires to outweigh emotional attachments to his own kids.

Of course, traditional roles about which gender does the child rearing and which gender does the providing result in the mother's feelings about children/stepchildren having a greater emotional impact on a person's childhood experiences than the father's, so literature doesn't exactly provide a conclusive story. It just makes the idea at least plausible.

And, yes, a change in environment (a more mobile society where a male may lose all emotional connections to his own children) would make behaviors that lurked under the surface a lot more apparent.

In any event, I wouldn't conclusively say that's the dominant line of male motivation - just that that type of behavior is a lot more common in males than females.

(I mean, I'd say I have a pretty strong emotional attachment to my kids, so there's at least exceptions. In fact, there are many instances where a male's emotional bonds with his kids are strong enough that he'd accept "less than optimal" emotional bonds with his wife for quite a long time.)

 

[zoobyshoe]

Nobody in the thread claimed that there is a plan for evolution and it's heading in any special direction. You can replace it with 'sex instinct'. Drive for reproduction.

No. The distinction between sex drive and the fictional 'drive for reproduction' has to be understood and maintained. There is no 'drive for reproduction' or for passing on your genes. The intent behind looking for sex is to have pleasure. The fact this, incidentally, results in reproduction does not mean there is such a thing as 'drive for reproduction'. That's like saying since drinking often leads to hangovers people drink in order to get a hangover, that there is a 'drive to get hungover'.

 

[hellbike]

I don't see the reason why people who like science would be any different than other men when it comes to women and relationships(especially when they are in college or undergraduate studies).

And if you ask about shy and not self confident persons, that not the science that makes them shy.

 

[DanP]

No. The distinction between sex drive and the fictional 'drive for reproduction' has to be understood and maintained. There is no 'drive for reproduction' or for passing on your genes. The intent behind looking for sex is to have pleasure. The fact this, incidentally, results in reproduction does not mean there is such a thing as 'drive for reproduction'. That's like saying since drinking often leads to hangovers people drink in order to get a hangover, that there is a 'drive to get hungover'.

Genes gives cues for behaviors. The only reason for which we have a sex drive behavior is reproduction. If sex would not cause reproduction, than we simply would not have any kind of behavior linked to sex.

Reproduction is not an accident due to the fact we feel good when we do sex. The whole behavior of having sex exist to serve reproduction.

 

[BobG]

I would imagine each partner/mate in a couple would like the other to be healthy so as to avoid long term companionship not encumbered by chronic health issues or disabilities.

Actually, that's not a behavior that would receive genetic reinforcement since they've had their kids by that time. Health issues that affect a person during their child bearing years would be more important.

None the less, it's a cold hearted world where a couple learns the true meaning of "in sickness and health". Often times, the healthy one decides that was a really bad promise to make and decides it's time to renege.

How understandable or immoral was it for Michael Schiavo to develop a relationship with and even have a child with Jodi Centonze while his wife was permanently disabled in a persistent vegetative state?

You see a lot of other less severe cases where a spouse just becomes tired of living with a person plagued with chronic disabilities that are only going to get worse and decides it's time to divorce the disabled spouse - hopefully with as little financial obligations as possible since the healthy spouse might still be young enough to find a new relationship. Probably one of the more cruel side effects of no-fault divorce since divorce almost always terminates the disabled spouse's entitlement to employer provided health insurance.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Genes gives cues for behaviors. The only reason for which we have a sex drive behavior is reproduction. If sex would not cause reproduction, than we simply would not have any kind of behavior linked to sex.

Reproduction is not an accident due to the fact we feel good when we do sex. The whole behavior of having sex exist to serve reproduction.

Logic like this is why I said some people unwittingly have one foot in Intelligent Design.

 

[Evo]

Monogamous strategies always made sense in reproductive behavior of humans. It's the safe route.

You seem to believe that sometimes in the past females gave into "whichever male decided to have them", which I don't believe it was ever the case.

IMO There doesn't exist any drive whatsoever for the women to act like this, and it never existed in past. It really never made sense for a women to act like that. from an evolutionary point of view.

In the past women rarely had the option of who to marry, this was usually decided by the parents, this still continues in many 3rd world countries.

 

[DanP]

Logic like this is why I said some people unwittingly have one foot in Intelligent Design.

It has nothing with intelligent design. You seem to believe that it does involve a design. No. It doesn't.

 

[DanP]

In the past women rarely had the option of who to marry, this was usually decided by the parents, this still continues in many 3rd world countries.

I'm talking about a much larger time span than what happened to women last century.

 

[Evo]

I'm talking about a much larger time span than what happened to women last century.

I'm talking about all through history.

 

[DanP]

I'm talking about all through history.

I think it's a bit forced. As far as I know there where significant periods of time in which the society was matriarchal, and the female was dominant in society. There are theories showing neolithic cultures in Europe as matriarchal, only being replaced by a patriarchal society at the beginning of Bronze Age.

Even later, in antiquity, when the situation of women was perceived as very hard, there where serious exceptions to this. For example the power which women enjoyed in Egypt.

And yeah, while in many societies it was somehow usual for parents to choose husbands for their daughters, I think this pretty much apply more severely to upper class only, where familial alainces where important.

Anyway, do you have some estimated numbers at how many of marriages from the last century for example where pre-arranged ? Some numbers would be great.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think it's a bit forced. As far as I know there where significant periods of time in which the society was matriarchal, and the female was dominant in society. There are theories showing neolithic cultures in Europe as matriarchal, only being replaced by a patriarchal society at the beginning of Bronze Age.

Even later, in antiquity, when the situation of women was perceived as very hard, there where serious exceptions to this. For example the power which women enjoyed in Egypt.

And yeah, while in many societies it was somehow usual for parents to choose husbands for their daughters, I think this pretty much apply more severely to upper class only, where familial alainces where important.

Anyway, do you have some estimated numbers at how many of marriages from the last century for example where pre-arranged ? Some numbers would be great.

I can not claim any extensive knowledge in the area but from what I have read matriarchal societies were rather exceptional. And either way, even in a matriarchal society, women most likely had to accept what ever male physically bested any other suitors as opposed to what ever mate they desired. While males may have respected them and looked for their acceptance any male at any time could physically displace the previous suitor and become the only viable choice of partner. An alpha female does not necessarily possesses the same freedoms as her male counterparts. Legends of amazonian tribes that dominated their males, I am fairly certain, are primarily the product of fantasy.

It has nothing with intelligent design. You seem to believe that it does involve a design. No. It doesn't.

I do not believe Zoob is claiming you are supporting ID just that you are using a mixed up logic which most of us learned in school and which happens to feed the acceptance of ID.
He is right that by proper interpretation of natural selection the reproductive success of humans who enjoy sex is incidental. Those who enjoy sex will likely procreate more and produce more offspring who are disposed to the enjoyment of sex who will procreate more on ad infinitum. The drive is the enjoyment of sex and the reproductive success is incidental but reinforces the trait.

Its all too easy to get these things tangled up especially when one is focused on the general mechanism of evolutionary success.

 

[Proton Soup]

i believe there are matriarchal societies in Mexico, still. and from a show i saw long ago when television was still somewhat educational, the Zoe indigenous people of south america practice group marriages, where everyone has multiple wives/husbands. quite a lot of variation exists, and even lifelong (our supposed ideal) pairbonds are common in the animal kingdom.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

i believe there are matriarchal societies in Mexico, still. and from a show i saw long ago when television was still somewhat educational, the Zoe indigenous people of south america practice group marriages, where everyone has multiple wives/husbands. quite a lot of variation exists, and even lifelong (our supposed ideal) pairbonds are common in the animal kingdom.

Polygamy still requires social bonding and stable hierarchal family units as opposed to the simian Casanova who spreads his seed where ever his fancy may carry him.

 

[GeorginaS]

I think it's a bit forced. As far as I know there where significant periods of time in which the society was matriarchal, and the female was dominant in society. There are theories showing neolithic cultures in Europe as matriarchal, only being replaced by a patriarchal society at the beginning of Bronze Age.

Even later, in antiquity, when the situation of women was perceived as very hard, there where serious exceptions to this. For example the power which women enjoyed in Egypt.

And yeah, while in many societies it was somehow usual for parents to choose husbands for their daughters, I think this pretty much apply more severely to upper class only, where familial alainces where important.

Anyway, do you have some estimated numbers at how many of marriages from the last century for example where pre-arranged ? Some numbers would be great.

The question thrown back at you, then. Some numbers and/or hard facts w/r/t this claim

significant periods of time in which the society was matriarchal, and the female was dominant in society.

would be really helpful, because there's nothing in my knowledge base to support this.

 

[DanP]

Its all too easy to get these things tangled up especially when one is focused on the general mechanism of evolutionary success.

I subscribe to Richard Dawkin's theory that genes play a causal role in evolution.

 

[DanP]

The question thrown back at you, then. Some numbers and/or hard facts w/r/t this claim

significant periods of time in which the society was matriarchal, and the female was dominant in society.

would be really helpful, because there's nothing in my knowledge base to support this.

We probably need an anthropologist to help us. Dono if there are any on the board.

 

[GeorginaS]

No. The distinction between sex drive and the fictional 'drive for reproduction' has to be understood and maintained. There is no 'drive for reproduction' or for passing on your genes. The intent behind looking for sex is to have pleasure. The fact this, incidentally, results in reproduction does not mean there is such a thing as 'drive for reproduction'. That's like saying since drinking often leads to hangovers people drink in order to get a hangover, that there is a 'drive to get hungover'.

Reproduction is not an accident due to the fact we feel good when we do sex. The whole behavior of having sex exist to serve reproduction.

That's a good point, zoobyshoe because most traditional teaching (or at least way back a thousand years ago when I was in school) taught that the drive was an evolutionary imperative to procreate. That's all cart before horse, though, isn't it?

When looked at and stated that way, though, it does then therefore mean that "evolution" has an agenda, as if it were some sentient being with ideas and a desire for a certain specific outcome. From that point, it's a very simple jump to ID. Natural selection has no such agenda.

Whereas if you consider it rationally (and no doubt there's science to back it up) creatures with the strongest sex drive -- and drive for pleasure -- would, as a bi-product, procreate more. Successful stuff survives. Period.

 

[Evo]

Anyway, do you have some estimated numbers at how many of marriages from the last century for example where pre-arranged ? Some numbers would be great.

I wasn't referring to the last hundred years, you brought that up. But you could look at the still ongoing practice of pre-arranged marriages in Asia and Africa.

 

[GeorginaS]

We probably need an anthropologist to help us. Dono if there are any on the board.

On what basis are you making the claims, then, about this:

significant periods of time in which the society was matriarchal, and the female was dominant in society.

You need an anthropologist to prove your statements for you?

 

[DanP]

When looked at and stated that way, though, it does then therefore mean that "evolution" has an agenda, as if it were some sentient being with ideas and a desire for a certain specific outcome.

It doesn't have any agenda, not unless you invent one.

 

[DanP]

On what basis are you making the claims, then, about this:

significant periods of time in which the society was matriarchal, and the female was dominant in society.

You need an anthropologist to prove your statements for you?

On exactly the same bases like Evo did in her claims.

 

[DanP]

I wasn't referring to the last hundred years, you brought that up. But you could look at the still ongoing practice of pre-arranged marriages in Asia and Africa.

Ok, what where you referring to then ?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I subscribe to Richard Dawkin's theory that genes play a causal role in evolution.

Dawkins has interesting ideas regarding information theory and evolution. I think that there are also some interesting ideas (similar to ID) regarding an inherent drive among organisms to improve or evolve. In general though I think that Dawkins and most evolutionary biologists would disagree that genes actually drive people to procreate in any direct manner. I have read The Blind Watchmaker and I do not remember anything that would contradict this idea. I have not read The Selfish Gene though and from what I have heard of it the theories Dawkins discusses there may lead one to believe that genes act directly on their hosts with an "agenda".

Like I said, it is difficult to communicate the idea of an evolutionary mechanism without using words that seem to imply "purpose". I also think that it may be possible that some form of "self directed" evolution occurs. I do not think that this is very well supported by any evidence so far though.

 

[DanP]

. In general though I think that Dawkins and most evolutionary biologists would disagree that genes actually drive people to procreate in any direct manner.
.

I agree , genes do not do actually drive ppl in a direct manner. Nobody stated this.

In fact, I stated time and again in this thread that an "agenda" is not required in those theories.

I said, it is difficult to communicate the idea of an evolutionary mechanism without using words that seem to imply "purpose". I also think that it may be possible that some form of "self directed" evolution occurs. I do not think that this is very well supported by any evidence so far though.

Can you explain what you mean by "self-directed" evolution theories please ?

 

[Proton Soup]

Polygamy still requires social bonding and stable hierarchal family units as opposed to the simian Casanova who spreads his seed where ever his fancy may carry him.

you do have that in simian societies.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I agree , genes do not do actually drive ppl in a direct manner. Nobody stated this.

In fact, I stated time and again in this thread that an "agenda" is not required in those theories.

The idea that reproduction is the drive behind sex and sexual attraction seems to imply a direct link as opposed to the indirect link that enjoyment of sex (independent of a "desire to reproduce") leads to more reproduction and therefore is more evolutionarily successful.

Can you explain what you mean by "self-directed" evolution theories please ?

There are single celled organisms which seemingly "improve" themselves by actively swapping genes between existing organisms (as opposed to pairing via reproduction). It is the basis of basic organic neural nets which work on a problem and then swap out code with those nodes that are more successful at their blind attempt on the problem. There have been theories of other possible occurrences of gene swapping among more complex organisms but they have mostly been shown unlikely or not possible. The one I read about specifically was the idea that HERV (Human Endogenous Retro Viruses) may become active and swap DNA between hosts. Fairly out there and very much shot down.

This is getting even further off topic though.

 

[BobG]

This is getting even further off topic though.

True. Just to get back "on topic", nerdy guys prefer girls that are interested in ensuring there's a future for the human race.

 

[GeorginaS]

True. Just to get back "on topic", nerdy guys prefer girls that are interested in ensuring there's a future for the human race.

So. 28 pages in, have we come to any definitive conclusions yet? I can't figure out whether or not I qualify.

 

[Char. Limit]

Nerdy guys are like other guys, just with intelligence.

Thus, they will probably want intelligent mates as well...

 

[DanP]

So. 28 pages in, have we come to any definitive conclusions yet? I can't figure out whether or not I qualify.

We won't get any definitive conclusions on this.
What I think is significant is that (male POV) :

- males prefer good looking women (being clean and neat is a big, big plus too)
- "good looking" is a relative term, and works with brackets. That's it, you will go for the category you find most attractive in your "league". It's the safest path, provides biggest success rates, and it's cushioning the "ego". What exactly is your league and how you end up being (self)assigned to a certain bracket might very well be a combination of physical traits and psychological processes.

That would be just about everything for the "Tarzan and Jane sleep together this evening/week/month"

For an actual long term relationship there is obviously much more to it, but I think it's safe to say that the generality "birds of a feather flock together" holds true.

Given the diversity of human behaviors it is impossible to give particular answers to this. A successful long term relation is a never ending negotiation.

 

[DanP]

Very true. I have a former friend that looks a lot like Robert Shaw, and he always cultivated that look. He is a rounder and a cheat, and he tried using me (without my consent) as an alibi when he came to Maine to work (which he did) and cheat (which he did) on his wife, whom I loved dearly as a friend. She called one evening asking to speak to my "friend" because he had gotten an offer on a muscle-car that he had restored, and when I told her that I hadn't seen him for weeks, she said "oh" in a tone like I had just gut-punched her.

(All I ll write here is a personal POV. It should not be considered an excuse for cheating behaviors. )

I have mixed feelings on the issue of cheating.

1. Addressing the fact that good looking persons are more likely to stray.

The question here is: Are good looking man behaviorally more inclined to cheating, i.e is there a trait who makes good looking persons cheaters ? Or it is because a good looking person is actually exposed to to much much more opportunities to cheat than a mediocre looking persons. So what does actually the statistic that good looking ppl stray more reflects ?

(The difference would be "some man are inclined to cheating" vs "all man are roughly equally inclined to cheating, but some get more opportunity to do so" )

2. In the case you illustrate here Turbo, one thing is clearly wrong. The fact that your friend used you without your consent to cover his tracks is pretty much irresponsible and I will add stupid.

3. Cheating is pretty much a personal thing between 2 persons, and without knowing the insides of the relation in question I will not cast any kind of blame. Only god and the 2 of them knows what happens in their household.

Not satisfied with your spouse? Be a real human being and cut off the relationship BEFORE you act on your impulses and cheat.

4. Sometimes you cheat even if you are very satisfied in your spouse. You don't want the relationship to end, and you genuinely care about your spouse. And I don't speak about egoistical reasons like "ill stay in this half assed relation till I find something better" (although this is extremely common too, especially in transitory relations, where you realize
that happily ever after won't work). I talk about genuine interest into your relation.

There are families where cheating was involved, but they have extremely solid relations which last of over 20 years, and they are very happy with each other. I realize this is not the norm, though.

Many ppl find way around this getting involved with persons very similar to them , and building open relationships. That's it, they kinda set up some rules, and keep sleeping with other persons too, but they keep observing the common rules.

5. I agree that in most of the cases the right thing to do what what you said. Be a real human being and end the relation before cheating.

6. IMO cheating is about decisions, and the burden of the decision is to the person who is actually involved in a relation.

I cannot subscribe to the popular opinion that a person who sleeps with married man / women can be considered a "home-wrecker". The "free" person owns no allegiance whatsoever to the spouse of the cheater.

This is why I find hilarious that a part of society demands that the mistresses of Tiger Woods apologize to his wife. Sorry, they did nothing wrong, and they owe no allegiance to her.

Of course there might be pathological cases where a person will serially get involved with married persons, ruins their marriage , dumps the victim, and moves to another target. But this pathology and not is not what usually happens.

 

[Pinu7]

Boobies.

End of thread.

 

[Magellan7t]

I cannot subscribe to the popular opinion that a person who sleeps with married man / women can be considered a "home-wrecker". The "free" person owns no allegiance whatsoever to the spouse of the cheater.

This is why I find hilarious that a part of society demands that the mistresses of Tiger Woods apologize to his wife. Sorry, they did nothing wrong, and they owe no allegiance to her.

By this line of reasoning, because I don't know you and have made no promises not to rob you blind, I would have nothing to apologize for if I chose to do it. It would be nice to know you'd bear me no grudge.

The mistresses wittingly and willingly did Tiger Woods' family an injury which could have easily been avoided. Tiger Woods carries more responsibility to his family and has more to be sorry for, but the women he slept with were also in the wrong.

If the roles were reversed and the actions of the mistresses were reciprocated against them downstream, I'm sure they'd be unhappy about it. The purview of fair play extends well beyond upholding contractual obligations.

What this boils down to is the Golden and Silver Rules. These are fundamental logical and ethical ideas that small children are able to grasp.

 

[DanP]

By this line of reasoning, because I don't know you and have made no promises not to rob you blind, I would have nothing to apologize for if I chose to do it. It would be nice to know you'd bear me no grudge.

This logic is flawed. First, sleeping around is not a criminal offense in any democratic society I know off today. Robbery / armed robbery are legally incriminated.

Second, even if you accept the comparison, in this case you can only compare Tiger to the perpetrator and you can only incriminate him, and not other persons.

The mistresses wittingly and willingly did Tiger Woods' family an injury which could have easily been avoided. Tiger Woods carries more responsibility to his family and has more to be sorry for, but the women he slept with were also in the wrong.

Tiger Woulds is the only one who owed any allegiance whatsoever to his wife. The women he slept with where not related / friends with Erin. They did not owed any allegiance.

Also, psychologically, the bulk of stress (injury) caused is directly attributable to Tiger, and not to 3rd party persons.

Blaming any other person for his actions is a shift of responsibility, a thing which I profoundly dislike, and which unfortunately I see more and more often.

Third, the situation is by no means so easily avoidable as you seem to make it. If X doesn't sleep with me, this doesn't mean all women will reject me, especially when you benefit the status and power Tiger has. It's simple.If a woman is uninterested, 10 others will be ready to step in the open spot. If he wants to sleep around, he *WILL* have always have a good pool to choose from. And this leaving aside escorts.

Forth, ppl get hurt in life all the time. It's a play-field out there.t.

If the roles were reversed and the actions of the mistresses were reciprocated against them downstream, I'm sure they'd be unhappy about it. The purview of fair play extends well beyond upholding contractual obligations.

Actually, you have no mean of determining where a cheated upon women will place the blame. You have your own mental processes and your inference of what other women would do in assigning blame are heavily biased by this.

And fair play ? Where ? I fail to see any around :P

What this boils down to is the Golden and Silver Rules. These are fundamental logical and ethical ideas that small children are able to grasp.

Ethics changes all the time. 100 / 60 years ago rigid adherence to "golden rules" robbed the women of many fundamental rights. Fortunately, today we recognize the right of a woman to an abortion. A simple example of how ethics evolve, as society change.

It's time to sober up, and change the "ethics" in assigning imaginary blames. The core of society has gone way too sensible and soft.

 

[Char. Limit]

Wait, an abortion? I thought you were talking about cheating spouses... Where does an abortion come in?

Also, I feel sorry for Tiger. I'm quite sure that if Annika Sorenstam was found to be involved in dozens of affairs, there would be not nearly as much coverage, and many people would place the blame on the men for "willfully doing Annika Sorenstam's family an injury."

I also happen to believe that Americans spend too much time focusing on celebrities in general. Of course, there isn't a thing I can do to change that.

 

[DanP]

Wait, an abortion? I thought you were talking about cheating spouses... Where does an abortion come in?

It comes in when you appeal to "Golden rules". Luckily some of humans had the power to break the status quo of "golden rules" and make the society advance. It;s just an example what terrible things happen when you adhere to rules you consider to be immutable. You reject humans the most basic rights possible.

 

[Magellan7t]

This logic is flawed. First, sleeping around is not a criminal offense in any democratic society I know off today. Robbery / armed robbery are legally incriminated.

Second, even if you accept the comparison, in this case you can only compare Tiger to the perpetrator and you can only incriminate him, and not other persons.

If it were illegal, they'd be getting prosecuted, rather than criticized. But legality is neither here nor there.

The other persons would be co-conspirators and separately charged.

Tiger Woulds is the only one who owed any allegiance whatsoever to his wife. The women he slept with where not related / friends with Erin. They did not owed any allegiance.

Yes, no allegiance is owed on their part, but they're still at fault.

Also, psychologically, the bulk of stress (injury) caused is directly attributable to Tiger, and not to 3rd party persons.

I agree with this.

Blaming any other person for his actions is a shift of responsibility, a thing which I profoundly dislike, and which unfortunately I see more and more often.

I see what you're saying, but I think you misunderstand my point. What I'm saying is the responsibility is shared. Tiger deserves most of the blame, but the mistresses have some to own as well.

Transference of blame bothers me, too.

Third, the situation is by no means so easily avoidable as you seem to make it. If X doesn't sleep with me, this doesn't mean all women will reject me, especially when you benefit the status and power Tiger has. It's simple. If you a women is uninterested, 10 others will be ready to step in the open spot. If he wants to sleep around, he *WILL* have always have a good pool to choose from. And this leaving aside escorts.

No one would argue he would have an easy time of getting women into bed. This has nothing to do with anything other than the fact that he'll be tempted more often than most men. The situation is easily avoidable because either party can simply choose not to have sex with the other. People are blamable for their actions because they have the ability to choose.

Forth, ppl get hurt in life all the time. It's a play-field out there.t.

Yes, there's always risk. Murder is a constant of society - this doesn't make it okay.

Actually, you have no mean of determining where a cheated upon women will place the blame. You have your own mental processes and your inference of what other women would do in assigning blame are heavily biased by this.

She would most likely blame both people; however, the point was that no one likes to be cheated on.

And fair play ? Where ? I fail to see any around :P

Yes, the world is unfair. That's hardly an argument.

Ethics changes all the time. 100 / 60 years ago rigid adherence to "golden rules" robbed the women of many fundamental rights. Fortunately, today we recognize the right of a woman to an abortion. A simple example of how ethics evolve, as society change.

Eh? Do you know what the Golden Rule is?

It's time to sober up, and change the "ethics" in assigning imaginary blames. The core of society has gone way too sensible and soft.

If English isn't your first language, "sensible" generally means to be of sound judgment. "Sensitive," would fit more closely with your meaning.

If we were talking about blaming video games and TV for school shootings, I'd agree with you. In this case, where there is consent between the two people, I believe there's blame to be owned by both.

 

[Magellan7t]

It comes in when you appeal to "Golden rules". Luckily some of humans had the power to break the status quo of "golden rules" and make the society advance. It;s just an example what terrible things happen when you adhere to rules you consider to be immutable. You reject humans the most basic rights possible.

The Golden Rule is a specific philosophical idea: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The Silver Rule is closely related as the negative: "Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you."

They're pretty closely related to the Harm Principle, which is all about maximizing personal liberties without harming others. Politically, it would probably be described as civil libertarianism.